CITY OF ESCONDIDO. Planning Commission and Staff Seating AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION. 201 North Broadway City Hall Council Chambers. 7:00 p.m.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CITY OF ESCONDIDO. Planning Commission and Staff Seating AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION. 201 North Broadway City Hall Council Chambers. 7:00 p.m."

Jayson Peters
5 years ago
Views:

1 CITY OF ESCONDIDO Planning Commission and Staff Seating JEFF WEBER Chairman STAN WEILER Commissioner OWEN TUNNELL Principal Engineer BILL MARTIN Interim Director Community Development MICHAEL COHEN Commissioner DON ROMO Commissioner AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 201 North Broadway City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. April 12, 2016 BOB McQUEAD Vice-Chair GREGORY JOHNS Commissioner JAMES SPANN Commissioner ADAM PHILLIPS Deputy City Attorney TY PAULSON Minutes Clerk A. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. B. FLAG SALUTE C. ROLL CALL: D. MINUTES: 03/22/16 The Brown Act provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Planning Commission on any item of interest to the public before or during the Planning Commission's consideration of the item. If you wish to speak regarding an agenda item, please fill out a speaker's slip and give it to the minutes clerk who will forward it to the chairman. Electronic Media: Electronic media which members of the public wish to be used during any public comment period should be submitted to the Planning Division at least 24 hours prior to the meeting at which it is to be shown. The electronic media will be subject to a virus scan and must be compatible with the City s existing system. The media must be labeled with the name of the speaker, the comment period during which the media is to be played and contact information for the person presenting the media. The time necessary to present any electronic media is considered part of the maximum time limit provided to speakers. City staff will queue the electronic information when the public member is called upon to speak. Materials shown to the Commission during the meeting are part of the public record and may be retained by the City. The City of Escondido is not responsible for the content of any material presented, and the presentation and content of electronic media shall be subject to the same responsibilities regarding decorum and presentation as are applicable to live presentations. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Oral Communications" which is listed at the beginning and end of the agenda. All persons addressing the Planning Commission are asked to state their names for the public record. Availability of supplemental materials after agenda posting: any supplemental writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Division located at 201 N. Broadway during normal business hours, or in the Council Chambers while the meeting is in session. The City of Escondido recognizes its obligation to provide equal access to public services for individuals with disabilities. Please contact the A.D.A. Coordinator, (760) with any requests for reasonable accommodation at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. The Planning Division is the coordinating division for the Planning Commission. For information, call (760)

2 Planning Commission Agenda April 12, 2016 Page 2 E. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: "Under State law, all items under Written Communications can have no action, and will be referred to the staff for administrative action or scheduled on a subsequent agenda." 1. Future Neighborhood Meetings F. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: "Under State law, all items under Oral Communications can have no action, and may be referred to the staff for administrative action or scheduled on a subsequent agenda." This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on any item of business within the jurisdiction of the Commission. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Please try to limit your testimony to 2-5 minutes. 1. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, MASTER and PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ZONE CHANGE, and AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH ESCONDIDO AREA PLAN SUB ; SUB ; PHG ; AZ and ENV : REQUEST: The project involves a Master and Precise Development Plan for 113 air-space, threestory condominium/townhome units on approximately 4.90 acres of land. Two Tentative Subdivision Maps (Del Prado North 81 units and Del Prado South 32 units) are requested because all of the subject parcels are not contiguous. An Amendment to the South Escondido Boulevard Area Plan is requested to allow an exclusively residential project on the site in conjunction with a Zone Change from General Commercial (CG) zoning to Planned Development-Residential (PD-R). Project components includes a mix of two- and three-bedroom units ranging from 1,109 SF to 1,584 SF situated in 27 separate buildings (21 buildings Del Prado North and 6 buildings Del Prado South). A dedicated two-car garage would be provided for each unit along with additional on-site open parking spaces. The project includes shared recreational facilities including a pool, deck/trellis features and BBQ areas. The proposal also includes the adoption of the environmental determination prepared for the project. PROPERTY LOCATION: The 4.90-acre project site generally is located on the southwestern corner of S. Centre City Parkway and Brotherton Road. The project consists of five parcels (APNs ; -26; -27; -35 and -36) addressed as 2329 Centre City Parkway. The site fronts onto and takes access from Brotherton Road on the north, and Centre City Parkway frontage road on the east. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was issued for the project on March 1, 2016 in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). APPLICANT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval COMMISSION ACTION: PROJECTED COUNCIL HEARING DATE:

3 Planning Commission Agenda April 12, 2016 Page 3 H. CURRENT BUSINESS: Note: Current Business items are those which under state law and local ordinances do not require either public notice or public hearings. Public comments will be limited to a maximum time of three minutes per person. 1. Approve Planning Commission Resolution 6063 Recommending DENIAL of a Tentative Map, Master and Precise Plan, Zone Change and Amendment to the South Escondido Boulevard Area Plan (SUB ; AZ ) to construct 65 attached, three-story condominium units. Location: 2516 S. Escondido Boulevard I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: "Under State law, all items under Oral Communications can have no action and may be referred to staff for administrative action or scheduled on a subsequent agenda." This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission on any item of business within the jurisdiction of the Commission. J. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS K. ADJOURNMENT

4 Agenda Item No.: D CITY OF ESCONDIDO MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ESCONDIDO PLANNING COMMISSION March 22, 2016 The meeting of the Escondido Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Weber in the City Council Chambers, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, California. Commissioners present: Jeffery Weber, Chairman; Bob McQuead, Vice-chairman; Ed Hale, Commissioner; James Spann, Commissioner; Don Romo, Commissioner; and Gregory Johns, Commissioner. (One position vacant). Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Jay Petrek, Director of Community Development; Adam Phillips, Deputy City Attorney; Owen Tunnell, Principal Engineer; and Ty Paulson, Minutes Clerk. MINUTES: Moved by Commissioner Hale, seconded by Commissioner Romo, to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2016 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. TENTATIVE MAP, MASTER AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ZONE CHANGE, AND AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD AREA PLAN SUB ; AZ : REQUEST: A request for a Zone Change from CG (General Commercial) to PD-R 28.4 (Planned Development Residential, 28.4 dwelling units per acre), in conjunction with a Master and Precise Development Plan and a one-lot Tentative Subdivision Map to construct 65 attached, three-story condominium units. The residential units would be grouped in 11 residential buildings with five to seven

5 units each. Each approximately 1,600 SF townhome unit would include a two-car garage and up to three bedrooms. Three recreational open space areas for residents are proposed on the site. An amendment to the South Escondido Boulevard Area Plan also is proposed to allow residential development without a mixed-use commercial component within the South Escondido Boulevard commercial corridor. The proposal also includes the adoption of the environmental determination prepared for the project. LOCATION: The approximately 2.29-acre project site is located within the South Escondido Boulevard Area Plan on the eastern side of South Escondido Boulevard and the western side of Cranston Drive, south of Citracado Parkway, addressed as 2516 S. Escondido Boulevard. Jay Petrek, Director of Community Development, referenced the staff report and noted staff issues were the appropriateness of the project design elements and whether adequate setbacks, parking and open space had been provided for the proposed development; 2) the appropriateness of the proposed amendment to the South Escondido Boulevard Neighborhood Plan to eliminate the commercial requirement on the site; and whether a residential use without a commercial component would be appropriate for the project site. Staff recommended approval based on the following: 1) The overall mass, scale and design of the proposed residential buildings were comparable to the residential development existing on the adjacent property to the north. The project had been designed to function almost as a second phase to that adjacent residential project by incorporating a similar building style with the buildings located in a manner that allows view corridors to remain through the site. Staff believed the development provided an appropriate amount of parking to suit the needs of residents and guests, and that a quality living environment will be ensured by the level of amenities provided in the recreation areas and the even distribution of outdoor recreation areas throughout the development; and 2) Staff felt the proposed amendment to the South Escondido Boulevard Neighborhood Plan to allow an exclusively residential project at this mid-block location would be appropriate because this type of development would serve as an appropriate transition between the mix of commercial uses to the north and south, and residential uses to the north and east. The General Plan vision for the Centre City Parkway/Brotherton Road Target Area called for locating non-residential uses at major intersections and specific nodes that were more conducive to commercial development. Staff felt that an exclusively residential development on this site could provide the catalyst for future residential development in the corridor and strengthen the customer base for mixed-use development at key intersections and node areas. Discussion ensued regarding a clarification of the proposed street improvements on Escondido Boulevard, a clarification of the location for the power poles on Page 2 of 6

6 Cranston Drive and Escondido Boulevard in relation to the project, and a clarification of waste collection operations for the subject project. Vice-chairman McQuead referenced the setbacks for the project s northern units and questioned whether adequate space would be provided for vehicles to back out of the parking spaces. Mr. Petrek replied in the affirmative. Vice-chairman McQuead referenced the projected trip generations, feeling that the peak hour morning traffic would be more than projected. Mr. Tunnell noted that the preliminary traffic projections were calculated using SANDAG guidelines, which showed no significant impacts as well as the subject intersections operating at a Level B. Commissioner Romo asked if the traffic study took into consideration the adjacent apartment complex. Mr. Petrek replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Johns asked if the project warranted a full traffic study. Mr. Petrek replied in the negative. Commissioner Johns noted that the intersection of Citracado and Escondido Boulevard was heavily congested in the mornings, questioning whether the subject project would add to this issue. Mr. Petrek replied that the congestion was a regional issue and that the project would incrementally add to the existing traffic in the area. Commissioner Spann and staff discussed the proposed location for the project s vertical landscaping. Commissioner Spann noted he had issues with the project s floor plans. Commissioner Romo did not feel the project s vehicle trips would create significant impacts. Commissioner Hale and staff discussed the project s traffic impact fees. Vice-chairman McQuead asked what the plan was if the units could not be sold. Edward Kaen, ETP, LLC, noted that they planned on selling the units as townhomes. He also indicated that the City was recommending four- and five-story units with higher density. Vice-chairman McQuead asked what would happen if the units did not sell and whether there was a prohibition against renting. Mr. Kaen noted that the CC&Rs had not been developed yet. Page 3 of 6

7 Vice-chairman McQuead asked Mr. Kaen if they had communications with EDI for the trash collection. Mr. Kaen replied in the affirmative. Vice-chairman McQuead did not feel the proposed trash collection was the best method for collecting trash. Mr. Kaen noted the adjacent property was using the same trash collection system. Commissioner Spann asked Mr. Kaen if the project could be constructed reducing it by 8 units on the north side in order to accommodate more parking and reducing the density of the project. Mr. Kaen noted that they had already reduced the project from 68 units to 65 units. Ron Verrier, Escondido, noted that he lived in Urbana, noting that the project would block his view. He expressed his concern with the intersection of Cranston and Escondido Boulevard already being heavily congested and the subject project adding to the congestion. He stated that there was no parking on Escondido Boulevard or Cranston in the subject area. He also elaborated that he had witnessed many accidents in the subject area due to the traffic congestion. Vice-chairman McQuead asked Mr. Verrier if he felt his complex needed additional guest parking. Mr. Verrier replied in the affirmative. Vice-chairman McQuead asked Mr. Verrier if he had any issues with the current trash collection, which was similar to what was being proposed for the subject project. Mr. Verrier replied in the negative. Vice-chairman McQuead felt the project would create traffic issues as well as being too dense. Commissioner Johns expressed his concern with the project creating issues with traffic, not having adequate parking, and the potential for the project becoming a rental project. Commissioner Spann felt the project would add traffic to an area that was already congested during peak hours. He felt the project needed additional parking and was too dense. He was also concerned with the setbacks and floor plan. Commissioner Hale expressed his concern with the project becoming a rental project. He was concerned with the City wanting the project to be more dense, noting he was opposed to urbanization. He did not feel the project would create traffic issues or trash collection issues. He felt there was a conflict with what was the best use for the subject property and what the applicant was told, noting the applicant followed what the City approved. Page 4 of 6

8 Chairman Weber expressed his concern with the subject area being a gateway to the City, feeling a moratorium should be established for this type of project. He felt the project would not be compatible with the Spanish architecture existing in the area. He felt the project was too dense, would not provide adequate parking as well as there being no off-street parking in the area. Commissioner Hale felt the Commission should base its decision on the Findings of Fact in the staff report before taking action. Commissioner Romo and Mr. Oliver discussed the ratio of units that would be allowed for a mixed-use project. Commissioner Hale and staff discussed the project s parking plan. Commissioner Hale noted that according to staff the project did not meet the needed parking. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Hale, seconded by Chairman Weber, to continue Item 1 and encourage the applicant to review the Findings of Fact, specifically Page 30, Item 3. Commissioner Spann noted that there was no guarantee that the project would pencil out even though it met the land use criteria. Commissioner Hale sympathized with the developer working with the City to present a project that staff could support. Commissioner Romo suggested the applicant figure out the parking and come back to the Commission versus moving forward with a mixed-use project. Mr. Kaen noted that the project provided the needed parking. Mr. Petrek reexamined the site plan and the staff report and noted that staff report was incorrect and the project provided adequate parking. Commissioner Hale withdrew his motion, noting that the applicant had met the letter of the law. Chairman Weber withdrew his motion. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Hale, seconded by Commissioner Johns, to approve staff s recommendation. Motion did not carry. Ayes: Hale and Romo. Noes: Spann, Johns, McQuead, and Weber. (2-4) Page 5 of 6

9 CURRENT BUSINESS None. ORAL COMMUNATIONS None. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Hale noted this would be his last meeting. Chairman Weber thanked Commissioner Hale for his service. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Weber adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The next meeting was scheduled for April 12, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 201 North Broadway, Escondido, California. Bill Martin, Secretary to the Escondido Planning Commission Ty Paulson, Minutes Clerk Page 6 of 6